Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673784
--- Comment #7 from Richard W.M. Jones <rjones(a)redhat.com> 2011-01-31 06:17:04 EST
---
(In reply to comment #6)
> I'm okay with using a different prefix like the
crossdesktop-* which Richard
> suggested if you prefer that
IMO, mingw-filesystem would be an appropriate name, because that's what it
currently is - The rest of it is wishful thinking.
"mingw" has always been an unfortunate choice of name. Really
the cross-compiler has very little to do with the
mingw.org project.
mingw-w64 is a completely separate fork. And there is a separate
mingw.org-related binary project which is nothing to do with us,
but people frequently get confused over the two.
And *crucially* we are adding support for Mac OS X which doesn't
use mingw at all.
This is why I'm suggesting crossdesktop-* or some other choice
which doesn't involve the 5 letters "mingw".
> The target name x86_64-w64-mingw32 might look a bit odd for
outsiders, but it's
> the default target name used by the mingw-w64 developers.
Well, ... this doesn't mean their decisions are wise ;)
x86_64-w64-mingw32 (cpu=x86_64, os=mingw32) is multiply problematic:
- the "32" in mingw32 originally stood for "MinGW on 32bit Windows",
=> a 64bit MinGW for "MinGW on 64bit Windows" should be named
"mingw64"
- Configure scripts currently presume "os=mingw32" to imply 32bit MinGW.
...
I.e. to me reasonable choices would be
x86_64-pc-mingw + i686-pc-mingw
or
x86_64-pc-mingw64 + i686-pc-mingw32
Whatever you think doesn't really matter, since this is the
choice of the mingw-w64 upstream project. They are in a much
better situation to judge how it should work.
--
Configure bugmail:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.